New Policy Paper on the "Personhood" Movement

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, Colorado voters will once again vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to grant all the rights of born persons to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses in November 2014.

The Coalition for Secular Government is pleased to announce an updated and expanded paper on the "personhood" movement by Ari Armstrong and myself, titled "The 'Personhood' Movement Versus Individual Rights: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception." The paper is currently available for download as a PDF or for reading as an HTML page.

Formats: HTML / PDF
Please share it with friends and on social media!

Here's our media release on it:

New Paper Criticizes "Personhood" Movement and Colorado's Amendment 67

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Coalition for Secular Government: http://www.SecularGovernment.us

A new paper criticizes the "personhood" movement and Colorado's Amendment 67, a measure that would treat abortion as murder under the law; outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, incest, risks to a woman's health, and severe fetal deformity; outlaw some types of birth control; outlaw common forms of in vitro fertility treatments; and ban embryonic stem-cell research.

The 54-page paper, coauthored by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong, offers extensive historical and scientific background on the "personhood" movement, abortion, and related matters. The paper also offers philosophic arguments supporting a woman's right to seek an abortion.

"Amendment 67 is extremely misleading in its language," Hsieh said. "The proponents of the measure apparently want voters to believe that it is about protecting pregnant women from vicious criminal attacks, but the reality is that the measure would treat women as murderers for getting an abortion or even for using certain types of birth control or in vitro fertility treatments."

Amendment 67 seeks to extend full legal protections to "unborn human beings," which its sponsors define as all embryos from the moment of conception.

As the new paper discusses, Colorado law already establishes criminal penalties for harming a pregnant woman's embryo or fetus against her consent.

If you have any questions about the paper, please email me.

Read more...

Pledge to Fund a New Paper on Abortion Rights!

After a hiatus in 2012, I'm sorry to report that "Personhood for Zygotes" is on the ballot again in Colorado in 2014. However, I'm pleased to announce that Ari Armstrong and I will update 2010 policy paper in defense of abortion rights in light of the very much changed political landscape. Once again, we need your support to make that happen!


Colorado's New "Personhood for Zygotes" Amendment

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, the crusaders against abortion rights have returned with yet another attempt to grant the full legal rights of personhood to fertilized eggs.

The ballot question reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings? (Full Text)

If successful, this measure would outlaw therapeutic and elective abortions, common fertility treatments, and popular forms of birth control. It would subject women and their doctors to intrusive police controls and unjust criminal prosecutions. It would force Coloradoans to abide by the deeply religious and sectarian view that the fertilized egg is imbued with rights from God.

Due to its misleading wording -- particularly its talk of "protecting pregnant women" -- 2014's Amendment 67 will likely fare significantly better in the polls than the "personhood" amendments proposed in 2008 and 2010. It's unlikely to pass, but that doesn't mean that abortion rights are secure. The dangerous ideology of "personhood" has spread like wildfire in the past four years among religious conservatives. In the 2012 presidential election, every Republican candidate except Mitt Romney endorsed "personhood for zygotes."

The ideology of "personhood for zygotes" must be steadfastly opposed -- based on a firm understanding of rights in pregnancy -- not merely because "it goes too far."


Support a 2014 Paper in Defense of Abortion Rights

To combat the dangerous ideology of "personhood" and defend abortion rights on principle, Ari Armstrong and I will publish a new version of their policy paper on the "personhood" movement. The updates to the paper will focus on the new language in 2014's Amendment 67, the widespread embrace of "personhood" by the Republican Party in the 2012 election, the synergy between "incremental" and "personhood" approaches to abortion bans, the defeat of a "personhood" amendment in Mississippi, and more.

However, that work depends on your support! The update to the paper will only go forward if at least $1500 is pledged by August 20th. That will help pay for the many hours of work this update will require. If sufficient funds are pledged, the 2014 paper will be published by September 17th.

So, if you want to help defend abortion rights in this 2014 election, please pledge! Any amount is welcome, and your pledge is not due until the paper is published.



Note: Due to efforts of the Center for Competitive Politics on CSG's behalf, Diana hopes that she will not have to report on funds collected for this project, as she's been obliged to do in prior elections. Time -- or rather the judge -- will tell. In any case, pledges for this paper are helping us have a viable case with which to challenge Colorado's onerous campaign finance laws.

If you have any questions about the project or pledging, please email me.

Read more...

Conservative Allies in Politics: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on conservative allies in politics. The question was:

Aren't politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul allies in the struggle for liberty? Although I'm an atheist and a novice Objectivist, I've always wondered why so many advocates of individual rights oppose candidates and movements that seem to agree with us on a great many issues. Despite their other warts, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the most likely men to promote our causes. The notion that they evangelize is dubious. And even if true, are there better alternatives today? I've also seen this attitude towards Libertarian candidates and their party. Ronald Reagan was the only President who advanced the ball towards free markets in the last fifty years, and yet people condemn him because of his position on abortion and because of his religious/political partnerships. I've never understood this. Shouldn't we embrace the advocates of free markets out there today, even if not perfect?

My Answer, In Brief: The Republicans – including "better" Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul – are a dangerous mixture of some economic liberty, nationalism, and theocracy. Instead of discrediting liberty by supporting them, focus on the issues.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 25:38
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Activism, Conservatism, Elections, Free Society, GLBT, Immigration, Politics, Progressivism, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Objectivism Versus Libertarianism and The Libertarian Party
• With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by William Martin
• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
• Rand Paul on immigration and Ted Cruz on immigration
• Sen. Rand Paul introduces 'fetal personhood' bill to outlaw abortion
• Denver Post: How the Republicans Lost My Vote by Paul Hsieh

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on conservative allies in politics, flunking a student, guilt about refusing requests, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 July 2014.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Objectivism Versus Secular Humanism: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on Objectivism versus secular humanism. The question was:

What are the similarities and differences between Objectivism and secular humanism? Objectivism and secular humanism are two secular worldviews. What are their basic points? Are they hopelessly at odds? Or do they share some or even many attributes?

My Answer, In Brief: Secular humanism is an attempt to meld secularism with altruistic and collectivist ethics, plus leftist politics. It's not a coherent philosophy – or well-grounded in facts. I urge secular humanists to honestly consider at Ayn Rand's philosophy as an alternative.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 18:18
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Objectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Secular Humanism

Links:

• American Humanist Association: Definitions of Humanism and 1933 Humanist Manifesto

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on Objectivism versus secular humanism, moral judgment of European colonizers, the right time to declare love, and more – is available here: Episode of 8 December 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Becoming an Educated Voter: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on becoming an educated voter that might be of interest. The question was:

How should I educate myself so that I can cast informed votes in elections? I'm 25, and I've never voted in any local, state, or national election. I have good reason for that, I think: I've never been able to educate myself sufficiently on the candidates to be certain of who to vote for. Also, as a marketing student with a passion for advertising and public relations, I don't think I could vote until I'd seen the inside of a campaign team as a member of it, so that I have a personal understanding of how much the candidate presented is real or idealized. I know that that is unrealistic, because I wouldn't know which candidate to work for. Instead of that, what steps could I take to inform myself, without consuming too much time, so that I could vote in the next presidential election?

My Answer, In Brief: A person ought to educate himself before voting, and that's relatively easy to do with a bit of research into the candidate's positions and record.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 12:58
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Elections, Politics, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Dr. Eric Daniels on Why Voting Doesn't Matter

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more – is available here: Episode of 15 September 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 7 August 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argue that it does. He will discuss the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Eric Daniels on Why Small Government Isn't the Answer: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed historian Eric Daniels about "Why Small Government Isn't the Answer." It's not directly related to the cause of secular government, but it's useful to anyone interested in political activism for individual rights. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You'll find it on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Eric Daniels about "Why Small Government Isn't the Answer"

Is "big government" the fundamental problem of American politics? Historian Eric Daniels will explain why this common formulation is misleading, wrong, and even dangerous to liberty.

Dr. Eric Daniels teaches history and works on curriculum development at the LePort Schools in Irvine, California. He has previously taught at Clemson, Georgetown, and Duke Universities. He has a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Wisconsin.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:15:05
• Download: Standard MP3 File (25.8 MB)

Topics:

• The problem with "big government" versus "small government"
• The proper debate: individual rights
• The two axes of size versus rights
• Big government like judicial activism
• Three categories of government action
• Violating rights versus failing to protect rights
• The Founders' view: not size but the proper ends of government
• The failure of the Articles of Confederation
• 19th century rights violations
• The rights of women
• Violations of rights by local governments, particularly based on race
• The real-life effects of failing to protect rights
• Judges riding the circuit, too small criminal justice system
• Measuring the size of government
• Measuring the growth of government
• The problem of the inessential
• Skewing the political debate toward anarchism
• The appeal to Somalia
• The terms "limited government" and "minarchism"
• Advice for activists
• Eric's new job at LePort Schools

Links:

• The Objective Standard: Why "Big Government" is Not the Problem by Eric Daniels
• Vices of the Political System of the United States by James Madison
• lePort Schools

Tags:

• Activism, America, Anarchism, Crime, Culture, Epistemology, Government, History, Law, Libertarianism, Politics, Racism, Rights, Self-Defense, Sexism

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Parental Consent for Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on parental consent for abortion. The question was:

Should minor girls be required by law to obtain parental consent for an abortion? Normally, parents are legally empowered to make medical decisions for their minor children, and minors cannot obtain medical procedures without parental consent. How should that apply in the case of pregnancy? Should pregnancy and abortion be treated differently from other medical conditions? Should parents be allowed by law to force a daughter under 18 to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort against her will?

My Answer, In Brief: Parents should never be able to force a minor child to bear the burden and risk of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. Hence, parental consent should not be required for abortion. However, a minor child cannot impose the burden of caring for another child on her parents, and so she might need to emancipate herself if she does not wish to terminate the pregnancy but her parents do.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 13:46
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Ethics, Health, Law, Parenting, Pregnancy, Religion, Rights, Sex, Young Adults

Links:

• The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception, particularly Section 4: Individual Rights and Abortion

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on moral judgments of obese people, parental consent for abortion, atheist as a negative term, living longer, and more – is available here: Episode of 14 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

North Dakota Bans Abortion for Genetic Defects

Babies with genetic diseases or developmental disorders deserve love, kindness, and respect... but embryos and fetuses are not babies. They exist inside the pregnant woman, wholly dependent on her alone for biological life-support. They do not have a right to life. Rather, the pregnant woman has a right to do whatever she pleases with her own body.

Fetal abnormalities are a darn good reason to terminate a pregnancy, as most people are not financially or emotionally prepared to care for a severely handicapped child, potentially in perpetuity. (Hence, the 90% abortion rate in such cases.)

North Dakota has banned such abortions. For people unable to travel out-of-state, the results will be disastrous.

Read more...

The Validity of Gay Marriage: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the validity of gay marriage. The question was:

Is "gay marriage" a valid form of marriage? Many people oppose gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is essentially religious, that procreation is central to marriage, or "traditional marriage" should be respected. Should gay unions be considered a valid form of marriage, legally or socially? Might civil unions be an acceptable alternative?

My Answer, In Brief: The various quasi-secular arguments against gay marriage fail, badly. Gay marriage is a matter of rights, and people ought to support it.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 21:25
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Christianity, Culture, GLBT, Law, Marriage, Politics, Religion, Romance

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: State Involvement in Marriage and Gay "Conversion" Therapy
• NoodleFood: Some Arguments Against Gay Marriage
• Republican Liberty Caucus: The Rational Solution for Gay Marriage
• Polling Data on Support for Gay Marriage Versus Civil Unions

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the validity of gay marriage, the is-ought gap, the aftermath of a friendship, mixing politics and romance, and more – is available here: Episode of 7 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Democrats and Republicans: United for Rapists

If you thought that only Republicans made idiotic comments about rape, think again. According to Colorado Democrat Joe Salazar, women on campus are incapable of understanding the basics of self-defense law, and so they should be disarmed so that they don't "pop a round at somebody."



Here's what he said:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. And universities have ben faced with that situation for a long time. It's why we have call boxes. That's why we have safe zones. That's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble -- and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.

Basically, the Democrats want to disarm women, so that they can't fight off a rapist. Then the Republicans want to prevent those women from obtaining Plan B or an abortion, if they get pregnant. It's lovely to see both sides united in the "War Against Women."

Also, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs advises women to "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating" and "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." Because nothing could go wrong with that, right? (Note: That wasn't posted in response to any of the recent debates about gun control, thankfully.)

Here's what I said about the importance of allowing concealed carry on campus in a prior blog post:

When I was a graduate student at CU Boulder, I had to walk a few blocks off-campus, through a residential neighborhood, to get to my car. I took classes in the evening on occasion, and during those times, my walk was dark and lonely. Like other students, I'd receive periodic reports of sexual assaults just off-campus, and that worried me.

The police chief's advice of carrying a "safety whistle" was pure absurdity to me. If I was attacked, that wouldn't do me a lick of good. Also, I knew that I couldn't hope to outrun my attacker: I'm a slow sprinter, and even in elementary school, I only ever beat the fat girl in running the 50-yard dash. Really, I wanted my "safety Ruger" -- because that could have actually kept me safe! Instead, I often took Kate, my German Shepherd with me to those late classes. She probably wouldn't have helped much if I'd been attacked, but she might have deterred a criminal.

Moreover, in the wake of school shootings, I hated to think of being disarmed and defenseless, particularly as a teacher in a classroom full of terrified students. I'd have an obligation to protect my students as best as I could, yet I'd be unable to do much of anything. I hated that with a passion.

I suspect (and even hope, somewhat) that the Democrats have reached their high-water-mark in Colorado with these new gun controls... if only the Republicans don't out-stupid them before the 2014 election.

Read more...

North Dakota Passes Personhood Legislation

Here's some very bad news from North Dakota, particularly for couples suffering from infertility:

North Dakota's Senate approved two anti-abortion bills on Monday that would ban the destruction of human embryos and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point a fetus can feel pain.

Senators voted 30-17 to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The measure is a challenge to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

The embryo measure narrowly passed 24-23, with the full Senate present. The measure's aim is to prohibit the intentional destruction of embryos and to regulate in-vitro fertilization, in which a woman's egg is fertilized outside her body. The bill defines a human being as "an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development."

For more on what's wrong with such "personhood" laws, read The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and myself.

Also, worse might be coming from North Dakota:

The North Dakota House this month also passed a bill that would ban doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat were detected. The House also has passed a bill would prevent women from having abortions based on gender selection or a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome.

Every restriction on abortion means forcing the burdens of pregnancy -- and likely motherhood -- on unprepared, incapable, and unwilling women. That's a violation of their right to life, and it's a serious moral evil.

Read more...

The Christian Conservative Echo Chamber

In his recent article, Why I'm Canceling my SI Subscription, Andrew Klavan is up in arms about the supposedly hostile leftism of culture -- Sports Illustrated in particular. It begins:

I am going to let my subscription to Sports Illustrated lapse when it runs out this year. I hope lots of other people will do the same. Like too many other publications, the magazine has become dishonest, dishonorable and even occasionally despicable in its conformist, lockstep left-wing bias. Republican politicians and conservative positions are routinely insulted in articles having nothing to do with either. Yawn-inducing left wing predictability is brought to the discussion of every issue. No SI writer is allowed to disagree with leftism ever. Despite its great photographs and occasionally good athlete profiles, the magazine has remade itself into crap in the name of political conformity.

For me, the Super Bowl issue with its smarmy and poorly reported article on religion in football was the last straw. The article was not an offense to God, it was an offense to journalism. Mark Oppenheimer, a left wing anti-religion writer for the left wing New York Times, among other left wing venues, does the left wing hit job on football players of faith. ...

Despite all that overblown rhetoric, he cites just one one example from the article. Here is the offending quote:

It's clear that for a substantial number of athletes and coaches, there is no tension between being a Christian and being an aggressive athlete. On the contrary, many of them argue that football builds character and thereby makes a man more of a Christian -- a commingling of faith and football now accepted by fans.

But is that a mistake? Just 50 years ago such coziness between public Christianity and football would have seemed absurd. Athletes were nobody's idea of good ambassadors for religion; they were more likely to be seen as dissolute drinkers and womanizers -- more the roguish Joe Namath than the devout Roger Staubach.The aggressive, violent play preached by coaches of an earlier generation was accepted as natural precisely because sport was pagan, not Christian. Christianity was peaceful, charitable and pious. Sport was bloody, ruthless, impious.

In the 1950s and 60s that antagonism began to soften..."

That's it. Not only does that example not support Klavan's hyperventiliating about left-wing bias, but it also equates public expressions of Christianity by private individuals with conservativism, such that any skepticism about that is nothing but left-wing bias. In fact, (1) most political leftists are Christians, and (2) many devout Christians are uncomfortable with the loud expressions of faith often heard from football players.

Are conservative Christians unaware of just how silly this makes them look to anyone outside their echo chamber?

Alas, I think not. Lord have mercy on us!

Read more...

Tacit Consent to Pregnancy? No!

This short commentary raises an excellent question about the "if you have sex, you're consenting to pregnancy" argument against abortion rights.

According to many pro-lifers, when women consent to sex, they thereby consent to (and commit themselves to) bearing any resulting children. And so, in deciding to having sex, these women have in effect voluntarily waived their right to get an abortion.

Now, I find this pro-life claim utterly baffling: consent to sex is clearly different from consenting to anything further, many women deliberately use birth control to avoid pregnancy, many women plan on getting an abortion if they should end up pregnant, etc. According to this pro-life claim, it seems, we are supposed to interpret the act of consensual sex itself as involving some sort of mysterious tacit consent and occult commitments that are not only morally significant, but so overwhelmingly morally important as to completely override the actual preferences of the woman. I don't think actions carry occult commitments, and this all seems like superstition to me.

But here's my question. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that actions do carry occult commitments. Even granting this, we still need a way of telling what those commitments are. Without a method of interpretation, we're utterly in the dark. For example, a typical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear the child, waiving one's right to an abortion. But a more radical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear and raise the child, waiving one's right to an abortion as well as one's right to put the child up for adoption. My question is: how are we supposed to tell which interpretation is correct, and which occult commitments are (and are not) carried by the act of consensual sex?

Ultimately, all arguments against abortion rights -- including the argument from tacit consent -- depend on the claim that the fetus has a right to life.  Ari Armstrong and I refuted that argument in our 2010 policy paper, The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.  If you've not yet read it, be sure to check out the section on "Individual Rights and Abortion."

That being said... over the past few months, I've been thinking off and on about how to defend abortion rights in a way that's more persuasive than the standard pro-choice arguments, including the better arguments of Objectivists.  I want to find a way to make my own view resonate better with reasonable people of the "but it's a baby!" mindset.  So if you have any thoughts on more effective rhetoric on this issue, I'd be interested to hear that in the comments.  I'd be particularly interested to hear from people who switched from "pro-life" to pro-choice views: What convinced you?

Read more...

Paul Sherman on Free Speech in Elections: Philosophy in Action Podcast

I interviewed Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections" on Philosophy in Action Radio on Wednesday, 9 January 2013.

You can listen to or download the audio podcast any time. You'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

Podcast: 9 January 2013: Paul Sherman on "Free Speech in Elections"

Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He argues persuasively that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech. He has successfully argued that view in courts across the country.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades."

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 59:19
• Download: Standard MP3 File (20.4 MB)

Topics:

• Common federal and state campaign finance laws
• The history of campaign finance laws
• Breadth in decisions, and my case
• The results of campaign finance laws
• Private enforcement of campaign finance laws
• The value of "transparency" and "accountability" in elections
• Money as a form of speech
• Protections for corporate speech
• Privacy and campaign contributions
• The irrelevance of funding to campaigns
• SuperPACS
• Individuals versus groups in campaign finance
• The Institute for Justice's current cases and strategy
• Truly supporting the First Amendment
• How to effectively defend free speech

Relevant Links:

• Institute for Justice
• Wikipedia: Benjamin Tillman
• Oral Argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Tags:

Activism, Campaign Finance, Elections, Free Speech, Government, Law, Politics, Rights

Episode Sponsor

This episode was sponsored the incomparable Audible.com.

I've subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my "Platinum Annual Membership," I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.

If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You'll get a great deal, and you'll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It's a win-win – and I love that!

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Support
Our WorkRemember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That's because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar! We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is welcome. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.

Read more...

Paul Sherman on Free Speech in Elections: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On tonight's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections."

This episode of internet radio airs on this evening, 9 January 2013, at 6 PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later.

Here's a bit more about the show:

Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He claims that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech, and he has successfully argued that view in courts across the country.

Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades."

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 9 January 2013.

I hope that you join us on Wednesday evening, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Two Wrongs, No Right: Scott DesJarlais

Oh my: Scott DesJarlais, Pro-Life Republican Congressman And Doctor, Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion:

A pro-life, family-values congressman who worked as a doctor before winning election as a Tea Party-backed Republican had an affair with a patient and later pressured her to get an abortion, according to a phone call transcript obtained by The Huffington Post.

The congressman, Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, was trying to save his marriage at the time, according to his remarks on the call, made in September of 2000. And, according to three independent sources familiar with the call and the recording, he made the tape himself.

DesJarlais, who was provided a copy of the transcript by HuffPost, did not deny its contents, but in a statement released through his campaign characterized it as just another sordid detail dredged up by the opposition. "Desperate personal attacks do not solve our nation's problems, yet it appears my opponents are choosing to once again engage in the same gutter politics that CBS news called the dirtiest in the nation just 2 years ago."

Amazingly, that's not even the worst of what he did. The details -- and the transcript -- are here.

Scott DesJarlais is no different than many other hypocritical advocates of banning abortion. Such people never see any valid reasons for abortion whatsoever -- until they happen to face some circumstance in which a baby would be inconvenient. Then they avail themselves of that choice which they seek to deny for others, usually without that affecting their efforts to ban abortion one iota.

Such hypocrisy is infuriating.

Read more...

Lies Straight from the Pit of Hell

Wow: U.S. House science committee member calls evolution, Big Bang theory 'lies straight from the pit of hell':

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell.

Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats. He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.

It's not surprising that this [unprintable term] is a politician, but it's scary that he's a doctor.

Read more...

Dr. Eric Daniels on Progress in American History

In Wednesday evening's episode of Philosophy in Action Talk Radio, I interviewed Dr. Eric Daniels on "Progress in American History."

If you missed the live broadcast, you can listen to the audio podcast. You'll find that posted below, as well as on this episode's archive page: 5 September 2012: Dr. Eric Daniels on Progress in American History.

Talk Radio: Episode: 5 September 2012

Many people on the political right regard America as steadily decaying since the founding era. Yet in fact, America has improved in many ways – not just in technology, but also in its culture, economy, and laws.

Dr. Eric Daniels is a research assistant professor at Clemson University’s Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He has a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Wisconsin.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:12:25


• Download: Standard MP3 File (16.6 MB)

To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader


• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

Follow Philosophy in Action

     

Read more...